The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:55 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Thanks for the input Sum! I think we have to let the 5"/38 go even from WIF builds. So, I say there would be no twin 5" guns on this ship because the Mk45 Mod4 rules the day, because they fire ammunition the Navy currently uses, only require 6 men per mount and they fire the up coming alternative to ERGM: the BTERM. Because this would be a ship that will participate in NSFS, 5"/38s are pretty useless, and the high volume of fire the Mk45 Mod4 provides makes the 5" somewhat viable. :big_grin:

So, even though they do have the best firing arcs I don't think keeping the super firing 5" positions is a good idea. Trading the outer 5" guns for strike length VLS builds up a lot of wobble weight on the extreme sides of the ship (a concern when modifying these ships) and like you said puts the VLS in greater danger. With the majority of the VLS weight (and all of the heavy TLAM weight) would be on the center-line, stability would not be as effected. With only two 5" guns, the super firing ones (Mts 51 and 56) you reduce your ammunition load to 1/2 of what I propose, making her no better armed with 5" than a CG :(

As opposed, the guns on the sides offers about 1200 5" rounds per side of the ship at a cost of adding only 12 sailors to the crew.

As for taking out the elevated VLS amidships, they are clustered by 1/2, but I would accept that for the load outs. I would also suggest that the sides would be pretty well protected with HY-100 or HY-120 armor so really, the only vulnerable area would be the hatches, and that's an inherent compromise with the system.

Because of this, I still stand by the 48 strike-length forward and aft in place of Mts 51 and 56 with 8-cell self defense length cells in the former Mts 38 and 39 for 32 ESSMs per side.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
navydavesof wrote:
Five-inch fire employed against small craft is a lot different today than it was when the Vincennes tried to fight small boats in the Straights of Hormuz with standard 5” rounds back in the day.

What is your basis for saying that? I'm not disputing your statement, just asking about the background. Has anyone tested current 5" guns against targets moving at 40+ kts and maneuvering? I'd like to believe the situation has improved but I don't know of any evidence that it has, aside from manufacturer's claims which are generally 50% wish and 50% optimistic "fact". Not that the Navy makes me privy to test results but every test video I see is against motionless targets at very short range.

Regards,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
carr wrote:
What is your basis for saying that? I'm not disputing your statement, just asking about the background.
What a fantastic question, and this is something I have wanted to share with you for a while. We have been spending a lot of money on high speed remote controlled RHIBs lately...and using them for target practice. I don't know what is accessible on the net so I won't say what different weapons do, but as you have seen on the web, the Mk110 can track and assault a remote controlled RHIB pretty well, but it does take several rounds to take out the target (hense the exraordinary high rate of fire). The 5-inch KE-ET round in combination with the Mk160 GFCS actually makes easy work of the un-manned RHIB boats. I specify "unmanned", because the men would be killed no matter what you're shooting at it. The problem is when the boat keeps going even with everyone on board dead.

The 5" KE-ET and HE-ET rounds are very effective at destroying small boats at all but long ranges. Rate of fire and longer range seem to be the difficulties the 5" still faces. :( However, it does not take 600 rounds to take out 3 boats anymore. :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I thought BTERM/ANSR was sidelined for ERGM. After ERGM went down, did they bring it back? I need to catch up on my reading….pesky real-world work getting in the way.

I didn’t realize you wanted to replace 52-55 with Mk 45 Mod 4 – so I’m good with the idea. Especially when ERGM and BTERM had a habit of reducing barrel life through the higher energy charges – more barrels to share the load should allow longer time between re-gunning.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
SumGui wrote:
I thought BTERM/ANSR was sidelined for ERGM. After ERGM went down, did they bring it back? I need to catch up on my reading….pesky real-world work getting in the way.
BAE has been working on BTERM since ERGM went away, and they have made some pretty good progress. Their presentation/simulator at the Surface Warfare Symposium 2010 showed some pretty nice performance, but like I said, it was only a presentation/simulator. I asked them to do a bunch of simulations utilizing 2 guns (hense the number of 5" guns on a CA or 3 for a BB) and strike certain targets in valleys and the mountains. The results show me that even though the rounds are going to be GPS guided, a high volume fire mission would be needed a lot of the time.

SumGui wrote:
I didn’t realize you wanted to replace 52-55 with Mk 45 Mod 4 – so I’m good with the idea. Especially when ERGM and BTERM had a habit of reducing barrel life through the higher energy charges – more barrels to share the load should allow longer time between re-gunning.
For sure, my dear sir...or...um...duderpants. :smallsmile:

Since the Des Moines had only 13 years of service, I would fit the ship for 20-30 years of service, and that would involve the 5"/38s to be gone-ed! The boilers would stay, because the boiler driven LHDs are going to be around for nearly as long. Same for my battleship reactivation.

I have thought a LOT about the Mk110 as a super anti-boat weapon ( :heh: ) but I don't think it's going to be necessary, and there is not a lot of space available. The Mt 36 and 37 magazines were going to be removed for more space for boats. However, if the Mk110 was deemed valuable enough, those magaziens could be kept and the Mk110 can be put in each. As a result the boats would have to go somewhere else, but I can't find a place yet…but I might have an idea.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Here is a pretty good Comparison of ship size and mast size and type. Here we have Des Moines in the foreground and a Spruance behind her. This certainly illustrates how the mast/masts could be arranged on board.

Attachment:
USS_Des_Moines_2004lowres.jpg
USS_Des_Moines_2004lowres.jpg [ 141.93 KiB | Viewed 1566 times ]


While the original masts look pretty stout they don't offer a lot of diversity or room for expansion. I liked how NAVSEA drew up the mast on the original reactivation project, but I want some originality. The forward mast unfortunately cannot be like that of the Iowas in that the legs straddle the stack, because there is an expansion joint just aft of the mast. An idea is to just reverse it to where the legs go forward. Following that I would replace the original vertical pole and construct an entirely new mast instead of trying to incorporate the original one.

So, if you're still listening, Seasick, which is good for replacement of the secondary radar? I am thinking of the secondary radar being able to track air and surface targets and be able to illuminate for the ESSMs.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Just in case someone forgot, this is what sex on steel looks like:
Attachment:
Level049largeVLS.jpg
Level049largeVLS.jpg [ 110.36 KiB | Viewed 1579 times ]

A concern with the VLS forward is that you have to worry about the tubes being a certain distance away from the bridge windows and a certain distance away from the back of the gun turret to provide enough internal volume to walk between the cells and the outermost bulkhead. There is enough room maintaining distance between the back of Turret 3 and the super structure. With this the forward VLS arrangement accommodates 48-cells, whereas there is the possibility that the aft can accommodate a full 64-cells. This enables the ship to take an entire 112 TLAMs into theater with 16-cells, or 32 ESSMs for self defense.

There will be additional structure added to the 01 Level aft structure at the base of the VLS similar to that forward. The extra internal volume would be used for UAV storage and workshop on the starboard side and a fantastic gym on the port side.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
I have my sketches, but does anyone have an idea about masts? Should there be one, should there be two?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
navydavesof wrote:
I have my sketches, but does anyone have an idea about masts? Should there be one, should there be two?

To repeat your list of included radars:

SPS-49 for 2D, long range air search
TRS-3D for 3D, air search
SPS-67 for short range surface search and nav
SPQ-9B for low altitude air and surface search

Questions:
*What is the range of the TRS-3D? I can't find a value.
*Can the TRS-3D take the place of the -49? It's lighter and smaller so it would be great to eliminate the -49, if possible.

It's probably possible to fit all these radars on one mast, however, you absolutely want two conceptual masts. This is a ship designed and intended to step into a fight and stay in it. So, you have to account for combat damage. Having all the radars on one mast is asking for an unlucky hit to take out all your main sensors. Thus, you need to spread the locations out which means, conceptually, a second mast. Now you don't need an actual second physical mast; you could simply mount radars on top of superstructure housings spread across the ship, if that's possible within weight and height requirements.

You also want redundancy in the sensors. While I realize that each main sensor can, to a somewhat limited extent, provide the functions of the others, why not have two -9B's and two TRS-3D's as widely separated as possible. The additional incremental cost is minimal and skimping on the cost to provide some of the main components that are needed in combat would be foolish. This is a fighting ship; give it what it needs to stay in the fight. Again, this is a strong rationale for having two masts, basically mirror images of each other.

You've already stated that you don't need Aegis or even NTU for this ship because it will be in company of other ships that will provide the "big" picture. With that said, my suggestion is to eliminate the -49 and mount (2)-9B and (2)TRS-3D on two widely separated masts.

If you want to stay in the fight, have redundant sensors on two widely separated masts so you don't have to cut and run after the first unlucky air burst.

Here's the wrong way to do it. The Burke has all major sensors in a single, tight location.
Attachment:
Radar1.jpg


Here's almost the right way to do it. The Spruance has a forward mast located as far forward as possible and a second mast with decent separation. I'd try to move the aft mast even further back.
Attachment:
Radar2.jpg


I realize that the Navy doesn't design "war" ships anymore, just floating missile platforms, but you're attempting to design a true warship. Do it right! You're already breaking with tradition so keep going and give your design what it needs.

Regards,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
I agree with carr's assertion that two masts are necessary for combat redundancy. I had originally figured on putting a second heavy mast aft of the stack supporting the 3D SPS-48E/G radar. Hoever perhaps something as big and cumbersome as a SPS-48 is unnecessary when there is another 3D radar that suits the ship's uses a little better, the TRS-3D. Being able to reach out to 50+nm, the TRS-3D is very small but very high powered and effective for its size. For a radar of it's size I would like to put both a second SPQ-9B and the TRS-3D and a pair of domes housing comminications equipment in them on a mast similar to that of the Ticonderoga-class's forward mast. The mast just needs to stand tall enough to see over the aft fire control tower.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 764
Location: Adelaide,SouthOZ
costampede wrote:
Heres something I have been playing around with.

Image


I like this one ALOT!! Keeps aft turret and Add's a decent Hangar (is that Sprucan/Tico sized??) gives my my twisted little 1/72scale mind some ideas!

Cheers N Merry Xmas

Bruce :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
HvyCgn9 wrote:
costampede wrote:
Heres something I have been playing around with.

Image


I like this one ALOT!! Keeps aft turret and Add's a decent Hangar (is that Sprucan/Tico sized??) gives my my twisted little 1/72scale mind some ideas!

Cheers N Merry Xmas

Bruce :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:

For sure it's interesting! I have seen this type of thing for sure. While this is possible, this is not what I had in mind. My idea is a minimalist but highly effective modernization, hence utilization of the below-deck hanger and existing structure. Plus there are a lot of things wrong with that picture and only require some tweaking to offer a reasonable picture:
- The VLS needs to be elevated quite a bit. It cannot penetrate that deep into the ship. That penetrates the vital second armored deck.
- The foremast is super way too big. Cut it by 1/2 and you would be accurate.
- Since it is operating with a Burke mast it is obviously a very modern conversion. Thus it needs 2 RAM mounts, likely 1 Phalanx and 1 RAM per side instead of 2 Phalanx only. They also need to be elevated to the O3 deck for proper coverage.
- All the 3" magazines are doing in that picture are taking up deck space. They should be cut off completely.

...but hey those are only my suggestions. While only a little tweeking would need to be done and you could have a pretty decent arrangement. But this is a huge rebuild, more of an Albany-type complete rebuild, and to be perfectly honest, if you want to go this way, HvyCgn9, I would suggest you go a little further if not all the way. I have thought about this kind of rebuild, so let me share it with you.

A Little Further:
You could have a modernized Mk74 Tartar New Threat Upgrade Weapon Direction System with 2 arrangements of 64 VLS cells. I would also suggest with this Albany-type re-build you rebuild the whole superstructure. In this situation you could redesign just a little if not a whole lot the bridge structure. I would suggest a new stack, too, such as a large version of a large Burke-style flat-sided aft stack with four staggered exhaust vents at the top. Then directly behind that your stack.
- In this picture, the mast is about 2x too big. So chop it down by 1/2 and you would be close to the right size.
- The aft VLS you could indeed put in the place of the below deck hanger and build in additional deck around it to fill in the rest of the hanger opening.
- This way you could have the monstrous modernized AAW system with 128 VLS tubes and the armament of the Des Moines.
- Two custom masts. Forget the stupid Burkes mast. People get such boners of "Burke masts". Unless it's going to be really, really close to a Burke (like my CGN) make your own mast. The Burke mast is dumb, because it holds nearly nothing. You would need two masts, one to hold a SPS-49, SPS-48, SPS-67, and a SPQ-9B. Those are all big radars and need some stout strucutre. Then consideration of the weaponry:
- 9 8"/55caliber rapid-fire guns
- 4 Mk45 mod4 5"/62caliber guns
- At least 16 Harpoons

All the Way:
- The above with Aegis instead of NTU

I can't wait to see you get started on your super heavy cruiser!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
As some of you regular readers know, I have weekly poker games with the CNO and he occasionally authorizes me to release recently declassified information. Well, you could have knocked me over with an LCS main battery (with enough shots; and assuming I wasn't wearing a flak jacket or a heavy sweatshirt) when he OK'ed me to share this with you. The Navy has, indeed, been working on a modernized Salem upgrade!!! Apparently, the LCS design team was able to jump on this project now that the LCS is a fully developed design. I've attached the design sketch that will be released to industry for bids in the very near future. Note the multiple layers of weapon systems and the heavy emphasis on speed. As the CNO said, "This will be a game changer in the war on pirate skiffs and, if worse comes to worse, there's nothing we can't run away from!"

Attachment:
Salem LCS.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
carr wrote:
As some of you regular readers know, I have weekly poker games with the CNO and he occasionally authorizes me to release recently declassified information. Well, you could have knocked me over with an LCS main battery (with enough shots; and assuming I wasn't wearing a flak jacket or a heavy sweatshirt) when he OK'ed me to share this with you. The Navy has, indeed, been working on a modernized Salem upgrade!!! Apparently, the LCS design team was able to jump on this project now that the LCS is a fully developed design. I've attached the design sketch that will be released to industry for bids in the very near future. Note the multiple layers of weapon systems and the heavy emphasis on speed. As the CNO said, "This will be a game changer in the war on pirate skiffs and, if worse comes to worse, there's nothing we can't run away from!"

Attachment:
Salem LCS.jpg

:thumbs_up_1: Fantastic

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
:lol_pound: :lol_pound: :lol_pound:

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Hey guys,

While I am finishing other important projects before I begin what I have illustrated in this thread one with my ISW Salem model (in the mail as we type), I would like to hear what some of you think about a new construction heavy cruiser.

As you all know, we have not constructed a real warship since the USS Newport News; not even the Long beach the last ship to be built on a "cruiser" hull was a warship! She was purely a defensive ship. She did not conduct war on any scale. She stopped others war from reaching whatever she was guarding.

If we were to build a new heavy cruiser, what kind of real armament (not rail guns or anything silly like that that's 20+ years away) would you suggest we use on a ship to be able to conduct true cruiser-type roles on a "heavy" or "large" cruiser hull in order to accomplish the following mission requirements?

1. Operate independently of carrier battle groups as a capital ship in a heavy crusier stike group/interdiction strike group
2. Conduct conventional operations (non-nuclear) in compliance with the US's strategic goals?
3. Conduct tactical roles both on the sea (Anti-Surface Warfare) and on the land (land strike and Naval Surface Fire Support)
4. Conduct overwhelming and devastating strikes within its range of influence and sustain combat operations within its scope of influence
5. Influence events ashore by its visible presence off the shore of countries of interest
6. Be able to sustain a significant amount of damage and still operate (up to 5 cruise missile strikes and 3 bombs to the deck)

What would you have as its:
1. Armament (offensive and defensive)
2. Sensor suite
3. Aircraft
4. Power plant type (diesel, gas-turbine, nuclear)
5. Passive protection in the ship
6. A reasonable attempt at radar cross section reduction. The US Navy has learned from the mistake of trying to make a fully stealth ship (DDG-1000). A fully stealth ship results in a ship that is unstable in the water and (admittedly by its manufacturer) will be remarkably expensive to maintain.

What would you chose and why did you chose the equipment you did? When considering what weapons, go to http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Main.htm for guidance on actual weapon systems. Through conversations I have had with people who know ships and weapons, I have already had people suggest incorporating the 12"/50caliber gun the Alaskas carried.

I look forward to what you guys have to say.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Ok, I'll take a SWAG...

1. Armament (offensive and defensive)
Primary: Large Caliber Gun. Delivery of weight accurately across distance, with the ability to generate a volume of fire. 8" or higher caliber for sufficient weight of projectile and size of projective for variant munitions
Secondary: 57mm Bofors Mk3. High rate of fire, multi-mode ammunition, already extant.
ESSM in VLS, already extant
NSM (Kongsberg). Most up to date anti-ship missile available. Smaller warhead than Harpoon, but also smaller footprint, allowing more to be shipped. Already extant.
Tomahawk for deep strike, already extant.

2. Sensor suite
TRS-3D, SPS-48, SPS-49
ESM

3. Aircraft
SH-60Rs, general purpose, ASW, ASuW, Insertion/extraction
UAV, artillery spotting, general surveillance

3a. Boats
10m RHIBs, Gnereal purpose, VBSS, Insertion/extraction
UUV, Monitor chokepoints, shallow water ASW, mine counter measures

4. Power plant type (diesel, gas-turbine, nuclear)
GT or Diesel seem to be the easiest fit to generate electricity, each has its issues (heat generation for GT, Radiated noise for Diesel)
Nuc may cause a large political hassle in the littorals. the inherent size of the vessel should provide sufficient endurance to expend munitions and need replenishment anyway.

5. Passive protection in the ship
Big fan here - look to BB/CA designs from the past, adding some modern materials (Chobham and the like). Primary and Secondary mounts should be armored. The ship should stay combat effective after three Harpoon-sized hits, demanding a fourth to begin to significantly degrade. Side armor should provide protection for VLS, and ASMs should be behind a Chobham wall slopped to reduce radar return.

6. A reasonable attempt at radar cross section reduction. The US Navy has learned from the mistake of trying to make a fully stealth ship (DDG-1000). A fully stealth ship results in a ship that is unstable in the water and (admittedly by its manufacturer) will be remarkably expensive to maintain.
Reasonable - I pretty much see as Burke-level of attention. More than that raises costs and makes too many compromises otherwise.


I know there is more I am thinking that I'm not getting down here...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
WHy do you have a TRS-3D and AN/SPS-48 at the same time? Also any remaining AN/SPS-48E has been refit to the newer AN/SPS-48G(V) standard. Until a few years many of the remaining AN/SPS-48E were barely operable. I'm unaware of how many AN/SPS-48G(V) upgrade kits are left. For NTU you would do better to integrate the TRS-3D and AN/SPQ-9B into the Mk74 system. Any mast on the ship should be like the Arleigh Burke's main mast. Both the fore mast and main mast should be in the Arleigh Burke style. No lattice mast. Remove any 90 degree cornors because they are mirrors for radar beams.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
SPS-48 has a much greater range than TRS-3D.

I see the TRS-3D concentrating on the immediate area - its advertised strong point is "With the latest signal processing technologies, it is especially suited for the early detection of low and fast moving objects, such as missiles, fast boats or unmanned aerial vehicles under severe environmental conditions.".

-48 has a greater range and can instead concentrate on the outer area.

Combined (with -49 as well) some functions overlap, which provides a lower chance for an undetected threat (probably won't be missed by all three main sensors), and enhances the ability of the ship to handle damage from burst weapons - one lost radar will not eliminate combat capability when others can perform some of the lost radar's role.

Countermeasure to detection is also more difficult when you have multiple sensors.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Seasick wrote:
For NTU you would do better to integrate the TRS-3D and AN/SPQ-9B into the Mk74 system.
I am glad you're finally on board with my modernized NTU arrangement! (Low-cost DDG-51) Welcome to the party.

Quote:
Any mast on the ship should be like the Arleigh Burke's main mast. Both the fore mast and main mast should be in the Arleigh Burke style. No lattice mast. Remove any 90 degree cornors because they are mirrors for radar beams.
With all due respect, puke on that. The heavy cruiser crosses radar reduction effectiveness threshold. Even though they're not as large as LHDs, LHDs still have lattice masts. The heavy cruisers and battleships are big enough to be seen by radar no matter what you do. The lattice mast gives you more growth opportunities, and it can be built with square bar to confuse reflection. Again like I said before, the lattice mast offers your ship extra protection by drawing anti-ship missiles toward it instead of the hull.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group